JUDGMENT
Amar Dutt, J.
1. Manmohan Singh has filed this petition to challenge the judgment dated 10.6.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Jude, Patiala rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala under Section 304A IPC.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 21.4.1995 at about 5.QO P.M., Om Dutt PW was proceeding towards Kali Devi Mandir from Phowara Chowk on scooter bearing registration No. PU V-8890 with Bhupinder Singh PW on the pillion. From the opposite side, one Avtar Singh an ernployee_of M/s K.K. Motor Garage, Patiala was coming on scooter bearing registration No. CHB-] 890. It was being followed by truck No. PNF-5449 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Within the sight of Om Dutt and Bhupinder Singh PWs, the aforesaid (ruck rammed inlo the scooter of Avtar Singh, who fell down and front tyre of the aforesaid truck ran across his head. Truck was stopped by Om Dutt and Bhupinder Singh PWs. It was found to be driven by the petitioner. The matter was reported to the police and on completion of the investigation, the challan was pul in Court against the petitioner,
3. After going through the papers sent up with the challan, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala had framed the charge under Section 304A IPC against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution examined four wilnesses.
4. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication and asserted that the accident was caused by one Raj Kumar, and instead of him, the petitioner was implicated because Raj Kumar was not having a valid driving licence. He,
however, led no defence.
5. After hearing the arguments, trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner was found to be without merit and dismissed. Hence this petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction and sentence recorded against his client on merit. He has confined his submission to a prayer for reduction of sentence in the tight of the circumstance that the petitioner had already undergone about 4 months of actual sentence and remission to which the petitioner would be entitled to in view of the fact that he did not run away after the accident. It was submitted that he would be entitled to reduction in the sentence.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I feel that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been facing trial since 1995 as also the post accident conduct of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone about four months of sentence, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the order of conviction passed against the petitioner, the sentence imposed upon him under Section 304A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
10. Petition partly allowed.